13.

Sucrose (24% to 30%) compared with control (sterile water or no treatment) for pain associated with venipuncture
Patient or population: neonates with pain associated with venipuncture Settings: hospital Intervention: sucrose (24% to 30%) Comparison: sterile water or no treatment
Outcomes	Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI)		No of participants (studies)	Quality of the evidence (GRADE)	Comments
	Assumed risk	Corresponding risk
	Sterile water or no treatment	Sucrose (24% to 30%)
PIPP score during venipuncture Range of scale 0‐21 for infants < 28 weeks PMA and 0‐18 for infants > 36 weeks PMA A lower score = less pain (Stevens 1996; Stevens 2014a)	The mean PIPP score ranged across control groups from 8.9 to 9.2	The WM PIPP score in the intervention group was lower than in the control group: 2.79 (95% CI‐3.76 to ‐1.83)	213 (2 groups in 1 study)	⊕⊕⊕⊕ high	Bias: low risk of bias Consistency: this study reported on two groups of infants; one group was born to non‐diabetic mothers and the other group to diabetic mothers. There was no heterogeneity for the results of the two groups I2 = 0% Precision: this study (with the two groups combined) had a large sample size with a narrow 95% CI (no concerns about precision) Directness: the study was conducted in the target population ‐ no concerns about indirectness
*The basis for the assumed risk was 'The mean PIPP score in the control groups according to the values reported in the Assumed risk column. The corresponding risk was the mean in the intervention groups for the PIPP score with its 95% CI'. CI: confidence interval; PIPP: Premature Infant Pain Profile; PMA: postmenstrual age; N/A: not applicable; WM weighted mean
GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect. Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate. Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate. Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate.